Interesting - I never knew that. If he planned to sue the name despite the CIA person, then A: Could he have gained it from another source and B: did he tell the CIA informant?
My comment is more on the matter of sources/confidentaility in general. Not being an American I have no horse in this race and haven't followed this particular case too closely.
I just hold a deeply belief that a journo worthy of the name will accept imprisonment, etc as a risk of using confidential sources.
"I just hold a deeply belief that a journo worthy of the name will accept imprisonment, etc as a risk of using confidential sources."
The problem is that the reporters in these cases are NOT willing to accept that risk and instead are trying to assert that they have special privileges not available to other citizens. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it, too.
The "source" issue here is different than what we call whistleblowing - the leak itself is a crime, revealing the name of a CIA agent. Who leaked it to Novak is the criminal, Novak is a jerk.
Basically 2 or more people were running their mouths off with "in" reporters. The other reporters have carped they shouldn't be dragged in because they didn't print the name first.
In the USA there was all sorts of media clamor to root out the person(s) who leaked the name. they're having scond thoughts now.
that's a fair sentiment. I've read a recent article where a jouro prof suggested one of the reporters not to fight this one. Because the leaked information didn't serve any greater good, but what many assumed was a motive of intra-government revenge.
The real motive probably is - there is none - it was just gossipiness.